Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds non-obvious behavioral constraints: the permission requirement, the owner cannot be removed, and the critical clarification that playerId is the embedded player doc id, not the user's id. There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, with each subsequent sentence adding a necessary constraint or disambiguation. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the permission requirement, ownership constraint, and ID provenance. An agent has the information needed to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for playerId by stressing that it is returned by play_list_campaign_players and is NOT the user's id, which reduces a likely mistake. campaignId is simple and already adequately described in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clearly bounded resource ('a player from a campaign'). This distinguishes it from sibling removal tools targeting items, rules, or spells.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: a required permission ('contribute'), an exclusion ('campaign owner cannot be removed'), and a pointer to play_list_campaign_players as the source of the playerId. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.